1972. [handwritten] 2 In a memoir published in the Phil.Trans [?] Vo. 203, pp. 52-86 I showed that these principles held for materials obeying Mendel's law - in particular they hold for the simple case of alternative characters such as are said to occur in the case of peas. The only instance that, I am aware of, in which ancestry does not matter is that in which the geometrical progression is of the form: p, p2, p3..... I treated[?] this case at length in the Phil. Trans.[?] Vol. 187 A p. 304b (18q6) remarking that the grandparents were quite indifferent, when the parents had been selected. Unfortunately this is not the case when the correlating coefficients are: 1/3, 1/2 x 1/3, 1/2[superior2] x 1/3, 1/2[superior 3] x 1/3, etc as is the case with the mendelian theory. In other words ancestry does matter in the latter theory. What is the explanation therefore of this apparent contradiction between such experiments as thos of Mr. Dalishire, and the theoretical development of the Mendelianisms which they profess to establish? It does not seem hard to account for the divergence. Experiments such as those of Mr. Darlishire do not deal with a population as a whole, and consider the contributions of [end]